I think you misread 2a3. It does say to map any driveway that is named.

I'm also of the opinion that 2d can be questionable. It may be better to word it as "In general, do not map..." or something like that. For most cases, it probably shouldn't be mapped just to resolve a UR or MP, but there may be valid reasons to map it.

And I agree that 3a should not be done. Not only is it not correct, but it makes the map look bad. I've seen maps where every side street or driveway shown on it had the same name as the road. You couldn't really tell what parts were actually roads and which parts were driveways or which parts may be other roads with or without a name. It just creates a mess.

Riamus wrote:I think you misread 2a3. It does say to map any driveway that is named.

Perhaps Kent was saying that if a driveway has a street name, it is a street, not a driveway.

Correct.

Riamus wrote:I'm also of the opinion that 2d can be questionable. It may be better to word it as "In general, do not map..." or something like that. For most cases, it probably shouldn't be mapped just to resolve a UR or MP, but there may be valid reasons to map it.

I think that would be a good alternate wording.

Riamus wrote:And I agree that 3a should not be done. Not only is it not correct, but it makes the map look bad. I've seen maps where every side street or driveway shown on it had the same name as the road. You couldn't really tell what parts were actually roads and which parts were driveways or which parts may be other roads with or without a name. It just creates a mess.

Based on mapcat's comments I think we three are pretty unanimous so far.

Riamus wrote:I think you misread 2a3. It does say to map any driveway that is named.

Perhaps Kent was saying that if a driveway has a street name, it is a street, not a driveway.

Correct.

Ok. Though I'd still say that it would be a private road, which would be the same mapping as a driveway since we don't have a driveway road type. If someone pays to get their driveway named, it doesn't make it a public street.

Riamus wrote:Ok. Though I'd still say that it would be a private road, which would be the same mapping as a driveway since we don't have a driveway road type. If someone pays to get their driveway named, it doesn't make it a public street.

IMO if it has a name, it is not a driveway, so if it is private, call it a private road, and if it is public, call it a street. Just not a driveway.

Riamus wrote:Ok. Though I'd still say that it would be a private road, which would be the same mapping as a driveway since we don't have a driveway road type. If someone pays to get their driveway named, it doesn't make it a public street.

IMO if it has a name, it is not a driveway, so if it is private, call it a private road, and if it is public, call it a street. Just not a driveway.

I believe mapcat is saying that if a road has a name and is behind a gate or marked as private, it is not a driveway, but merely a private road. If it is named and publicly accessible it is not a driveway, but a street. However, since we don't have a driveway designator, I'm not sure this argument is important because it is either a street or private road.

However I would not recommend naming the "Private Road / Driveway" unless the name it is clearly visible to the driver as they approach the road in question.

Riamus wrote:However I would not recommend naming the "Private Road / Driveway" unless the name it is clearly visible to the driver as they approach the road in question.

Well, I can tell you for a fact that at least in some places (Sussex Co DE) there are some private roads that have a name and at least one address assigned to them, but they sometimes have no visible sign and look like a driveway.

State Manager: District of ColumbiaAM Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C./Sussex County, DE/Westchester County, NY

russblau wrote:Well, I can tell you for a fact that at least in some places (Sussex Co DE) there are some private roads that have a name and at least one address assigned to them, but they sometimes have no visible sign and look like a driveway.

I think we all agree there are exceptions to every rule. If the city recognizes the name on a road and other maps recognize the name on the road, then I say we name it. Our point was if someone decided to name their driveway "Joe Rd", that is not a recognized name and we should not map the name.

russblau wrote:Well, I can tell you for a fact that at least in some places (Sussex Co DE) there are some private roads that have a name and at least one address assigned to them, but they sometimes have no visible sign and look like a driveway.

I think we all agree there are exceptions to every rule. If the city recognizes the name on a road and other maps recognize the name on the road, then I say we name it. Our point was if someone decided to name their driveway "Joe Rd", that is not a recognized name and we should not map the name.

Plus if there's an address assigned to it, then it's an address, and we need the namedroad so we can put an address point on it. That's the top reason for the blanket admissibility of named "driveways" as I see it.

I guess the other way of looking at that particular issue is if the roadway is named (and possibly has addresses associated), it should be mapped. Once mapped you can decide what kind of roadway that should be. This original topic was about WHEN to map driveways, so I propose we just make that first point up front to prevent people getting confused (as we were a bit here).